You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
- Ray Bradbury

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THIS...

Thanks to friend Joe for sending me this article.

George WillHouston Chronicle10-04-05

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons. He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists. In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.'' It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends. The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination. Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group. The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ``discriminated against'' because of her gender. Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

Joe's note: The author of this essay, George Will, is a long time rabid right wing ideologue. It is interesting to read his more snide comments about Dubya, his long time hero. When W's followers make light of his reasoning abilities, it lends credence to something All Proud Democrats picked up on a long time ago.

Snave's note: George Will may be pretty danged conservative, but I have to admit that during the times, now and then, when he applies reason to his arguments he can be effective. Naturally, I find pleasure in reading about his dissatisfaction with Dubya and the Harriet Miers nomination. George Will isn't critical of Miers for her now-obvious opinions on the issue of abortion, that is, he doesn't seem to have a "litmus test" other than "is she qualified to do the job, or not?" He is critical of Dubya for nominating a friend who has few, if any, credentials for Supreme Court duty.

The more we see prominent conservative pundit question the conservative president, the better. It helps the country realize that... gasp... there are some conservatives who don't like Bush! Because Will seems to be an intelligent person, those who read his columns may make this association and may re-evaluate their voting tendencies during the next few years. Maybe if more people such as George Will become "traitors" and "jump ship", it will at least contribute to the GOP nominating a moderate candidate to run for the presidency in 2008.

5 Comments:

I have to hand it to old George Will. For being a Conservative writer, he definitely calls it as it is or at least how he sees it.

He pointed out in his article the number one reason, indeed the only good reason, why Miers shouldn't be confirmed. That reason is the fact that she has never been a judge. It DOES seem impossible that Bush could have looked at a list of 100 people and a crony-friend of his without any judicial experience is the best he could find. He must have really been riding the dregs, huh?

I personally support Miers marginally because I fully expect that if Bush nominates another, he will go for a far-right candidate who will be more predictable but more definitively dangerous to American law and justice. We can't afford that as a nation.

Snave, you suck. Shame on you, trying to tell your readers that I'm dead. I can still blog, you know... In fact, some of the Kerguelens are willing vessels for my spirit, and they still have my computer.

Bush's opinion does not matter when it comes to the experience of Judicial Candidates, esp. those for the Supreme Court.

I think that Bush is trying to take advantage of the fact that there are many Justices who have no judicial experience. He is hoping that the American public will fall for it. It looks like his party is not.

Bush also thinks that his personal opinion of a candidate holds weight. No one trusts Bush. Few people do.

About Me

I am a native eastern Oregonian, and have lived here 47 of my 59 years. I left at 20, but was back by age 32 to be near my parents to help them in times of need. I don't fit in politically here because I view things from a decidedly left wing perspective... but that's o.k. because I love the people, I love the area and for the most part I like living here. I enjoy family time, listening to music, reading books, traveling, bird watching, hiking, backpacking, watching movies, keeping up on politics, watching sports, sitting at the computer so much I get sores on my ass, and playing music... if you need a band for your party or celebration, let me know; I play keyboards and sing for a rock and roll band, and we do mostly "classic rock". (I also like to play guitar and bass and other instruments, but those are for my private enjoyment only!) I am mainly an agnostic/skeptic, but would consider myself spiritual. I work in schools and in clinical settings as a speech/language therapist. It is enjoyable work and it pays some of the bills. I have a rather unpredictable sense of humor, which can get me in trouble at times, but hey, is life worth living without laughter? I think not!